Engaged
in a continuous PR blitz, presidential campaign strategists always strive to
portray their candidate as damn near perfect. Even obvious flaws are apt to
be touted as signs of integrity and human depth. Such media spin encourages
Americans to confuse being excellent with being preferable.

Eager to dislodge
George W. Bush from the White House, many voters lined up behind John Kerry
in late January. It’s true that the junior senator from Massachusetts is
probably the best bet to defeat Bush -- and, as president, Kerry would be a
very significant improvement over the incumbent. But truth in labeling
should impel acknowledgment that Kerry is not a progressive candidate.

Enthusiasm for a
presidential contender often causes people to go overboard with their praise
and lose touch with reality. On the left, a classic example came from the
wonderful documentary filmmaker Michael Moore, who declared in a
mid-September open letter to Gen. Wesley Clark: “And you oppose war.” It was
a preposterous statement about a
retired four-star general who has never apologized for his
commanding role in a war that inflicted more than two months of
terrible bombing on densely populated areas of Yugoslavia in 1999.

A salutary antidote to
the poisons of campaign propaganda and media hype could be summarized this
way: “No matter how zealous you are about supporting a particular candidate,
don’t say things that aren’t true!”

In national politics,
most Americans have a strong pragmatic streak -- and perhaps never more so
than now. Evidently, at least half the country is hoping to see Bush leave
the White House sooner rather than later. A nationwide Newsweek poll,
released on Jan. 24, found that 52 percent of registered voters said they
don’t want Bush to have a second term – and nine-tenths of those voters held
that view strongly. In light of the extremely destructive right-wing
policies of the Bush administration, any flaws in the Democratic challenger
will pale for many voters.

Meanwhile, the news
media will increasingly frame public debate about the presidential race as a
contest between backers of President Bush and the Democratic nominee,
presumably Kerry. Partisans will be head-over-heels for their man. But an
important question should still be asked and answered: “Compared to what?”

For example, we should
consider that question in terms of whether John Kerry is a militarist.
Compared to George W. Bush, he doesn’t seem to be. Compared to Dennis
Kucinich or Al Sharpton, he certainly is.

Kerry’s senatorial
vote for the war resolution in October 2002 remains an indefensible part of
his record. Despite the
absence of credible evidence, Kerry included this rhetorical question in
his oratory: “Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons
when most nations don’t even try?” In
a speech on Oct. 9, 2002, Kerry also tried to justify his pro-war vote
with the statement that “according to intelligence, Iraq has chemical and
biological weapons.”

Politicians who
support illegal wars of aggression always have excuses. Kerry blames
“intelligence.”

On the domestic front,
after his New Hampshire victory, Kerry boasted to CNN viewers that he voted
for the 1996 “welfare reform” law -- which amounts to class war against
low-income mothers.

Likewise, Howard Dean
also supported that draconian measure. On the eve of the New Hampshire
primary, Dean talked about the welfare law as a terrific booster of
self-esteem for poor moms -- even though the law is pushing them out of the
home into dead-end minimum wage jobs. Days later, Dean tarnished his
populist persona by choosing a new campaign manager, Roy Neel, a former
mega-corporate Washington lobbyist who ran the U.S. Telecom Association.

Like most of his
Democratic opponents, Dean pretends that the key problems with U.S.
militarism began in the second year of George W. Bush’s presidency -- thus,
Dean’s approval for the Gulf War of 1991, the Clinton administration’s
bloody assault on Yugoslavia and the U.S. attack on Afghanistan that began
in late 2001. Dean has not seemed troubled by the irony of evidence that the
number of Afghan innocents killed by the Pentagon was quickly comparable to
the 9/11 death toll.

With ample
justification, some view the presidential race as a choice of weasels ... or
far worse. While the likely prospect of Kerry as the Democratic nominee
makes him a pragmatic choice for the November election, let’s keep in mind
that his political career has been sustained by largess from such corporate
patrons as Time Warner and Fleet Boston Financial Corp.

Understandably,
people who comprehend the damage done by the current administration are keen
to see a President Kerry replace President Bush next January. But that
eagerness should not mean buying into media spin that depicts John Kerry as
an advocate of military restraint or a champion of economic justice.